I'd say that it's primarily about learning to fight, but there are other benefits such as health, fitness, learning history, etc that make it more than 'just' fighting. But then I wouldn't go to an evening class in painting for the social life. I'd go there to learn how to paint.

Phrost's 'Steak-and-garnish' diagram said it perfectly.

There ARE other benefits that people can derive from martial arts, but those can usually be found elsewhere (e.g. I'm sure yoga is better for flexibility than tai-chi, but I'm no expert).

Martial arts without fighting are just arts. **** the semantics or clever wordplay, get real and stop pontificating.

Also, Tom Kagan's friend may have been 'fighting', but that's not martial arts and you are most certainly being greater than ninety degrees. :XXmonkey:

Mr Politically Correct GIJoe6186:

Fat people disgust me in every way imaginable. I was at Freindly's with my girl tonight and saw a bunch of fat fuckers. I felt sorry for the pavement they were killing and the people who had to see them. .

Also, Tom Kagan's friend may have been 'fighting', but that's not martial arts and you are most certainly being greater than ninety degrees. :XXmonkey:

Yet, you got my point. But, if you still want to argue semantics, I'm being roundabout, not obtuse. :smile:

Okay, I'll be less roundabout. (As I posted before, but more succinct):

To be a Martial Art, it needs to teach better fighting. Take away fighting, yes, it's no longer a martial art. But take away teaching, and it's just two roosters in a cock fight.

In my opinion, the two terms "teaching" and "fighting" are inseparable in the context of Martial Arts.

Calm down, it's only ones and zeros.

"Your calm and professional manner of response is really draining all the fun out of this. Can you reply more like Dr. Fagbot or something? Call me some names, mention some sand in my vagina or something of the sort. You can't expect me to come up with reasonable arguments man!" -- MaverickZ

Ah, in my opinion calling a system used for fighting a "martial art" is something of an insult, considering all of the other things that are also called "martial arts." It instantly puts styles that focus on actually fighting in the same category as styles that do everything but.

Originally Posted by BoardHitBack

If I call a spoon a fork, I'm incorrect in my application of the word "fork" and in no way have I made the spoon into a fork. If I call a fork a fork I am using the term correctly and the fork is still as it always was- a fork.

Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by CNagy

If I refer to a spoon and a knife as silverwear, I am technically correct. In a fight, though, would you want to use a spoon or a knife? It is my interest to seperate the spoons, sporks, and forks from the butterknives and breadknives, and the butter and breadknives from the steak-knives and butcher's knives.

You completely missed my point- which was calling styles not about fighting martial arts was incorrect and categorising them as something they were not. Your initial post was ass-backwards, saying that because people used a term incorrectly that term becomes insulting to the things it accurately applies to. That is really stupid.

Your response didn't change anything, as it had nothing to do with anything I'd said. Nor was it something I had disagreed with, nor will disagree with. Why you suggested otherwise I'm not sure.

He who attains his ideal by that very fact transcends it- Nietzsche

I like my Te like I like my tea- from Fujian province and without any bullshit in it. Oh, and green. And scented with jasmine blossoms...

Originally Posted by A Better American Than You

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.

The defining characteristic of the Martial Arts is fighting. Remove the fighting component from arts such as Aikido and Tai Chi and you just have eastern philosophy and funny outfits. Remove the punching and kicking from XMA and you have gymnastic floor exercises.

So anyone who says the Martial Arts are not about fighting is full of **** and trying to make them about anything but fighting, probably because they can't fucking fight.

You can say Driving is about the feel of the road, seeing the sights along the way, or expressing your wanderlust. But without the fact that the car is a tool to take you from one place to another, it's all pointless. Martial Arts are for fighting as cars are for driving. You can assign any ancillary fluff to the driving or fighting experience, but you can't change the fundamentals of what they are.

The people who say the Martial Arts are not about fighting are exactly the same as the idiots who put racing rims and an F-1 wing on a Ford Contour, while claiming they just do it because they like the way it looks. It's bullshit, because deep down they want their 4-door shitbox to be fast and are hoping they can convince a casual observer that it is.

Car modifications that don't enhance performance are a hell of a lot like martial arts belts and ranks that don't reflect ability. It's all about putting out an image.

And that's the true reason why people say the Martial Arts aren't about fighting. It's so they can put out the image of being good at fighting, without ever having to actually prove it.

From my perspective, I would agree with you, because for me, MA is about fighting, but that won't change what other people doing with it. So the guy who is doing Tai Chi to relax, he's not doing martial arts? I know a guy in my BJJ class who's just doing BJJ for a nice workout and another who just does it because it's fun... what about them?

This is a sort of convoluted argument mixing purpose discussion with "what should a martial art have" sort of discussion. I agree that to be considered a martial art and meet the intrinisic definition of the label, that there should be some form of fighting in there, but to say "martial arts is about fighting and those who don't fight aren't doing martial arts" is a non sequitor.

haf u ever watched the early guess who was the best TANK ABBOT a streetfighter its a fact that streetfighting prepares u phuysically and mentally 4 battle and makes u stronger than dancing around in a gi like a fag

Hrmmm reading through this another time I think I've been confusing myself a little.

Martial arts is about fighting. Yes, that was it's original function and still is. Take away the fighting part of it and its not martial arts anymore.

What people do with it is up to them. If they want to use it to meditate, fine. If they want to use it to get in shape, fine. Going back to the original poster's question, bullshido is when you state that what you are doing with martial arts is fighting, or teaching how to fight, and then delivering crap and risking injury to yourself and more importantly to students.

haf u ever watched the early guess who was the best TANK ABBOT a streetfighter its a fact that streetfighting prepares u phuysically and mentally 4 battle and makes u stronger than dancing around in a gi like a fag

haf u ever watched the early guess who was the best TANK ABBOT a streetfighter its a fact that streetfighting prepares u phuysically and mentally 4 battle and makes u stronger than dancing around in a gi like a fag

Tank has got training in boxing and wrestling (or something like that) from what I understand. Secondly, it didn't prepare him for every eventuality from fighting, go watch his 30 second battle against Frank Mir. As for dancing around in a gi like a fag, I will be sure to forward your comment to the Kyokushin community and the Gracie family, to let them know what you think of their training attire...

tank abbot was a STREETFIGHTER he listed that as his stiyle and also PITFIGHTING which is basically hells angels motorcycle men who form a circle with their bikes and fiht in the middle that is where tank got his experience which he used to defeat expert martial artists such as paul varelans